How could Central Powers win in WW1?

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

First USA doesn't join and she didn't saw Mexican-German treaty, they are still angry on Germany, but Germany promised them ''something'' after the war and so they don't join. German Spring offensive is success full, it breaks morale of whole French army also they lose will to fight and also Britain lost in Western Front, but not the war. German army marches in Paris, they force peace treaty to France. France is out of the war. They need to:
Pay money for German causalities caused by French.
Give Morocco, Madagascar and other colonies to Germany.
Stop trade with British, instead trade with Germany. (To harm Britain even more)
Give All Lorraine and bordering territories with Belgium to Germany.
Germany gives back Paris.
Next target is Italy. Germany divides Western Front army in 3 parts. One keeps guarding Newly acquired territories. Second is going to help Austro-Hungary against Italy. And Third is going to Help Ottomans and defeat British (The biggest army). British and Greek Offensive against Bulgaria fails, because French no longer can support them. Macedonia isn't re-conquered but instead Bulgaria goes offensive against Greece. Bulgarian Public is protesting.
Austro-Hungary with German support decisively defeats Italy and captures Venice. Italy starts thinking that war is lost.
German army arrives to Istanbul Turks call them ''Saviours''. They make up their plan and are going to crash Britain once for all!
British army again loses in Greece and it flees out of there. Greece sawing that immeditaely makes peace with Central Powers:
Greece must pay ALL Bulgarian loses.
Give Parts of Rumelia to Bulgaria
Some Islands to Ottoman Empire.
For Bulgaria it was what it needed to achieve peace and crush the revolionatists.
British forces and ANSAZ forces are defeated by German and Ottoman forces in Middle Eastern Front, war ends. All Allies sign peace treaty. Now Allies were guilty of War.

Terrotorial changes.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[il padrino]

you forgot the serbz


besides that,your theory is (sorry).

ww1 was not like some kind of game.

[Barry Ferguson]

What brought German defeat in WWI was the change in Alied warfare. They moved to something which was almost quasi-blitzkrieg, using the new Whippet tanks in armoured gorups with infantry support, rather than throwing tanks in the general direction of the enemy followed by infantry as they had been doing since the tank was invented.
Also, for Germany to win would require the destruction of the Royal Navy, Germany was effectively starved into submission by 1918.

In short, it was internal collapse, new tactics and American entry that defeated Germany, but I don't think American intervention was neccessary to defeat Germany by 1918

EDIT: The spring offensive was more a desperate throw of the dice, rather than a new phase in Germany's onslaught

[Tiberius Tosi]

In short, it was internal collapse, new tactics and American entry that defeated Germany, but I don't think American intervention was neccessary to defeat Germany by 1918

After the failed German offensive in 1917 that is mostly true. But nonetheless the war probably would have gone on much longer had the US not entered, as it was the prospect of endless American reinforcements that was a big factor in Germany's surrender. Had the US not entered, the result would probably have been the same, except with much much larger loss, as the Germans would have fought on much longer.

[Barry Ferguson]

After the failed German offensive in 1917 that is mostly true. But nonetheless the war probably would have gone on much longer had the US not entered, as it was the prospect of endless American reinforcements that was a big factor in Germany's surrender. Had the US not entered, the result would probably have been the same, except with much much larger loss, as the Germans would have fought on much longer.

Indeedy. The arrival of the American's provkoed the last assault, to try and drive the allies back before they could arrive. But by this time te war was lost anyway I think the Navy was already mutinous by this time, but I couldn't swear to it

[Azog 150]

Originally Posted by Tiberius Tosi
After the failed German offensive in 1917 that is mostly true. But nonetheless the war probably would have gone on much longer had the US not entered, as it was the prospect of endless American reinforcements that was a big factor in Germany's surrender. Had the US not entered, the result would probably have been the same, except with much much larger loss, as the Germans would have fought on much longer.

^^^I would say an extra year tops. Germany was starving to death by 1918- they couldn't have continued much longer even without US Reinforcements (Although they certainly did help)

Britain and France still had plenty of man-power left. Its just that many were demoralized after 4 years of horrific conflict. US reinforcements helped boost this morale and also meant there was many more men who had yet to witness trench warfare.

[Monarchist]

It seems that people focus on the late war too often, but it is the early stages of a war, according to Clausewitz, that decide the entire fate of it. Two problems, I think, caused the irreparable loss of the Central Powers by 1915: Schlieffen's plan, and the speed of Russia.

Schlieffen's plan was simply that the German First Army would take Liége in Belgium, move in a northerly arc toward Brussels, take Ypres on the Belgian-French border, and move south toward the French capital. Paris would be surrounded on its western flank, the First Army would cross the river Seine, and then would turn east (south of Paris), linking up with the German Third Army east of Paris as the German Second Army moved straight for Paris in the middle of the storm.

When the time came in early September 1914, von Klück, head of German First Army, panicked. He was supposed to move straight southwest and cross the Seine, but the Second Army on his far eastern flank was unexpectedly attacked by the British Expeditionary Force. It appears that the German 2nd and 3rd armies had been separated from each other, and the British were jutting themselves directly into the gap between them. Von Klück abandoned the planned turn west of Paris, and shifted his direction northeast of Paris so as to reinforce the Second Army. In the resulting Battle of the Marne, the Schlieffen turn became impossible and the Germans were forced north again, never even having come close to surrounding the capital of France.

Secondly, the Russian problem. It was almost comical, to be perfectly honest. The point of the Schlieffen plan was that Germany had to knock Belgium and France out of the war as quickly as possible, so that Russia could not have time to mobilize and close in on Germany from two fronts. In the end, it was actually Russia that turned out to be weak and ineffective, and Belgium/France that turned out to be the decisive front. Schlieffen's miscalculation was that Russia would take a long time to mobilize; in reality, Russia was already mobilized ten days into the War! The entire Schlieffen plan relied on taking Paris in 40 days, because forty days was thought to be the amount of time it took Russia to mobilize properly. When the fortieth day passed, the Kaiser asked if Paris had been taken; when his staff replied in the negative, he looked down for a moment, almost sadly, and said "then the war is lost." He was a dramatic fellow, to be sure.

I remember all of this from Barbara Tuchman's book The Guns of August. It really is very informative if you wish to know what happened to knock the Central Powers off-balance. Simply take what happened as described in that book, and apply the opposite to history, and the Central Powers might have been victorious. Of course, there was always the problem of the Allied blockade of Wilhelmshafen and the Kiel Canal. I tend to think it was generally unwinnable for Germany and Austria, and whatever chance that they had of victory had been lost by December, 1914. The closest they came again was May, 1918 - but it floundered thanks to the influx of American men and supplies.

[gsoxx]

If the US doesn't join the war and doesn't start to (illegally) supply the Entente with war material after their credit line ended, Germany would achieve at least a favorable peace treaty, which allows her to keep much of the eastern gains. Why?
First of all the Entente was dependent on the delivery of US war material since 1915. The Allied offensives of this time are unthinkable without it, because France has lost her most industrialized region and obtained most of her fertilizer/explosives from Germany(!) prior to the war. This dependency would only increase during the war. If the credit line ends 16/17 so does much of the Allied war effort (of course the US couldn't let that happen historically).
So let us look upon the situation in 1917. The Allies have basically lost everywhere except on the Western Front. Russia slowly collapses and takes Romania with her. Italy has been dealt a heavy blow and only major western reinforcements avoid her dropping out of the war. The French army mutinies and without the prospect of several millions of Americans arriving, moral will stay low. Meanwhile, with the forces from the East, Germany will achieve overall numerical superiority on the western front for the first time since 1914. And without the estimated surge of fresh American troops, she is not pressed to gamble all her forces in one last blow. Much of the forces historically directed to the March offensive could even be used to finally knock out Greece and Italy.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Also about British blockade:
After peace treaty with France, France gives support to Germany (Food, repair money etc.) Also USA didn't joined.

[Londinium]

I tend to think it was generally unwinnable for Germany and Austria, and whatever chance that they had of victory had been lost by December, 1914. The closest they came again was May, 1918 - but it floundered thanks to the influx of American men and supplies.

Totally agree aside from the fact that the Kaiserslacht floundered thanks to the Americans, it didn't, the American contribution to the war ending was mainly pyschological, it was the French armies and especially the British armies (due to the hideous state the French army was in after Verdun, the British were plugging a lot of holes in the French lines) that bore the brunt of the Kaiserslacht, halted it and then smashed the Germans back. If the armistice hadn't been signed when it was, the British and French may have taken the war into Germany, pretty much from the time when the Allies halted the German Spring offensive until the armistice, it was a case of Allied victory after Allied victory. Not to rule out the contribution of the American forces, but it was British, British Commonwealth (especially ANZAC and Canadians) and French forces that militarily won the war in 1918.

[Azog 150]

If the US doesn't join the war and doesn't start to (illegally) supply the Entente with war material after their credit line ended, Germany would achieve at least a favorable peace treaty, which allows her to keep much of the eastern gains. Why?
First of all the Entente was dependent on the delivery of US war material since 1915. The Allied offensives of this time are unthinkable without it, because France has lost her most industrialized region and obtained most of her fertilizer/explosives from Germany(!) prior to the war. This dependency would only increase during the war. If the credit line ends 16/17 so does much of the Allied war effort (of course the US couldn't let that happen historically).

Although US supplies were vital- Britain actually supplied more materials and loans to France and Russia then the US did (Which is why France and Russia had to take big loans from the US in order to pay back Britain). Although US supplies were very important, they were not completely necessary.

So let us look upon the situation in 1917. The Allies have basically lost everywhere except on the Western Front. Russia slowly collapses and takes Romania with her. Italy has been dealt a heavy blow and only major western reinforcements avoid her dropping out of the war. The French army mutinies and without the prospect of several millions of Americans arriving, moral will stay low.

You are completely forgetting the battle against the Ottoman Empire which Britain and France were well on their way to winning.

Meanwhile, with the forces from the East, Germany will achieve overall numerical superiority on the western front for the first time since 1914. And without the estimated surge of fresh American troops, she is not pressed to gamble all her forces in one last blow. Much of the forces historically directed to the March offensive could even be used to finally knock out Greece and Italy.

Although its true that the Germans were forced to speed up their offensive before American reinforcements arrived in full strength, it was still the British and French who bore the brunt of the offensive and successfully fended it off. You also have to bear in mind that it was up to Britain and France to equip the US forces with modern weaponry and teach them in the ways of trench warfare (Although US Generals ignored this advice at first- they quickly learned to listen). So again, its a case of American reinforcements being very helpful and helping to minimize the loss of life and bring the war to a quicker end, but they were not completely vital.

[gsoxx]

Although US supplies were vital- Britain actually supplied more materials and loans to France and Russia then the US did (Which is why France and Russia had to take big loans from the US in order to pay back Britain). Although US supplies were very important, they were not completely necessary.

You see the logic there? If the US is part anywhere in your credit cycle than you can't just take her away without braking that cycle.
American steel production (by 1914 already highest in the world) for example alone increased 240 percent between 1914 and 1917. So you tell me if the withdrawal of the worlds greatest steel manufacturer from your camp affects your ability to wage war. And we haven't even talked about ammunition and other vital supplies.

You are completely forgetting the battle against the Ottoman Empire which Britain and France were well on their way to winning.

Irrelevant to Europe. They could even have taken Constantinople somewhere in 1918. It wouldn't have mattered, they were already in Greece.

Although its true that the Germans were forced to speed up their offensive before American reinforcements arrived in full strength, it was still the British and French who bore the brunt of the offensive and successfully fended it off. You also have to bear in mind that it was up to Britain and France to equip the US forces with modern weaponry and teach them in the ways of trench warfare (Although US Generals ignored this advice at first- they quickly learned to listen). So again, its a case of American reinforcements being very helpful and helping to minimize the loss of life and bring the war to a quicker end, but they were not completely vital.

How is that relevant? We are talking about the case of NO American soldiers at all. No American steel, no American ammunition, ships, weapons (yes weapons, built after Entente specifications, but still made in the U.S.)...
The economical and psychological effect of the US entry outweighs any possible military effect up to 1918. Being just helpful still is THE understatement of the war.

[Azog 150]

You see the logic there? If the US is part anywhere in your credit cycle than you can't just take her away without braking that cycle.
American steel production (by 1914 already highest in the world) for example alone increased 240 percent between 1914 and 1917. So you tell me if the withdrawal of the worlds greatest steel manufacturer from your camp affects your ability to wage war. And we haven't even talked about ammunition and other vital supplies.

Well no one is talking about taking the US away, they are just talking about taking away actual US soldiers fighting in the war. Either way, without the US its not like Britain couldn't have loaned money to France and Russia- we could afford it (It turned out we didn't get most of that money back anyway)- it would have just meant France and Russia would have had to find another way to pay us back later on.

Irrelevant to Europe. They could even have taken Constantinople somewhere in 1918. It wouldn't have mattered, they were already in Greece.

It was relevant. Aside from securing Middle Eastern oil supplies (Oil was becoming more and more important at this time) and other M.Eastern resources, it meant Britain and France would have been able to divert more troops to the Western front and it also opened up another potential front against Austro-Hungary and Germany through the Balkans.

How is that relevant? We are talking about the case of NO American soldiers at all. No American steel, no American ammunition, ships, weapons (yes weapons, built after Entente specifications, but still made in the U.S.)...

We are talking about No American soldiers, but I wasn't talking about no American supplies whatsoever.

The economical and psychological effect of the US entry outweighs any possible military effect up to 1918. Being just helpful still is THE understatement of the war.

OK, maybe describing Us entry into the war as helpful is a big understatement- but they were not completely essential to the Allies winning the war. It could have been done without US intervention (Not talking about supplies, loans and what not)- it just would have dragged out for longer and cost yet more lives.

[gsoxx]

Well no one is talking about taking the US away, they are just talking about taking away actual US soldiers fighting in the war.

Except me that is. You replied to my post. I never referred only to the soldiers on the ground. I stated if the US does not join the war and stops supplying the Entente as soon as they can't pay anymore.

Either way, without the US its not like Britain couldn't have loaned money to France and Russia- we could afford it (It turned out we didn't get most of that money back anyway)- it would have just meant France and Russia would have had to find another way to pay us back later on.

And what will France do with this loans? Buy weapons from Britain? Surely not from the US, because they wouldn't accept that "money". It doesn't work that way.

It was relevant. Aside from securing Middle Eastern oil supplies (Oil was becoming more and more important at this time) and other M.Eastern resources, it meant Britain and France would have been able to divert more troops to the Western front and it also opened up another potential front against Austro-Hungary and Germany through the Balkans.

No and no. Middle Eastern oil wasn't even a factor in WWII and as I already said the Allies were already in Greece, so no second front there.

We are talking about No American soldiers, but I wasn't talking about no American supplies whatsoever.

Even then Germany has more soldiers on the Western Front than her adversaries. How do you think that would affect the moral and fighting power of both sides? Does that look like the basis for an Entente victory?

OK, maybe describing Us entry into the war as helpful is a big understatement- but they were not completely essential to the Allies winning the war. It could have been done without US intervention (Not talking about supplies, loans and what not)- it just would have dragged out for longer and cost yet more lives.

Those loans were a direct breach of neutrality and in itself conducted what we could call an act of war. That's why Germany saw the US as quasi-belligerent.

Question: How to win the war. Answer: Don't activate the Schlieffen Plan.

The Germans essentially made that offer to Britain and earned deafening silence.

Britain would probably not have joined the war, there would be no blockade, no need for unrestricted submarine warfare and no US intervention.

How would that match up with the 200 years old British "Balance of Power" policy? Do you believe Belgium was the whole issue or even part of it? A French invasion of Belgium would have triggered an Anglo-German alliance?

If Germany had stood on the defensive in the West they could have held off French attacks easily and crushed Russia.

That would mean France doesn't lose 70% of her steel production and 50% of her coal production. And GB is still likely to join.

Austria-Hungary would have been spared much of the strain of fighting Russia. Italy might even have joined the Central Powers in order to get a chunk of southern France from the anticipated peace treaty.

There I can agree. Sacro Egoismo ftw.

[4th Regiment]

Well in 1918...maybe, jut maybe Germans had chance if they tried to focus on stabilization of economy and food situation after they have gained whole Ukraine , Belorussia and Baltic. With those resorses and diverting eastern divisions on west - but instead of braking moral and back of its Army in doomed offensive, they have tried to stay in defense and fortifed line before Atante offesive. In that case, maybe especially Friench army morale would brake first...

[Juvenal]

The Germans essentially made that offer to Britain and earned deafening silence.

You expect Britain to declare her intentions? Dear me.

How would that match up with the 200 years old British "Balance of Power" policy? Do you believe Belgium was the whole issue or even part of it?

Belgium was important to Britain. It was created to deny the channel ports (especially Antwerp) to hostile powers. Britain was uninterested in European wars unless her interests were directly threatened. I could imagine Britain playing a similar role to that which the US adopted, i.e. biased neutrality, supporting France and Russia economically and declining to sell armaments to Germany (as if they cared).

Can you really imagine Britain committing the BEF to an invasion of Germany? And if they did, would the German Army even notice?

A French invasion of Belgium would have triggered an Anglo-German alliance?

Were the French intending to invade Belgium?

That would mean France doesn't lose 70% of her steel production and 50% of her coal production. And GB is still likely to join.

With hindsight (denied to Germany in 1914 I admit), we see France being trounced in the Battle of the Frontiers. How long would France have fought and bled when only Alsace/Lorraine were at stake rather than La Belle France herself?

After seeing French armies going through the meatgrinder in 1914, what would possibly possess the British to introduce conscription in order to create more mincemeat for a European war which was actually weakening their two biggest rivals (Germany and France)?

There I can agree. Sacro Egoismo ftw.

Good to see we both subscribe to Realpolitik.

[Keravnos]

Central empires didn't win because they couldn't. It's not like they didn't try anything they could think of (chemical warfare being one of them).

[Juvenal]

Question: How to win the war. Answer: Don't activate the Schlieffen Plan.

If Germany had stood on the defensive in the West they could have held off French attacks easily and crushed Russia.

Britain would probably not have joined the war, there would be no blockade, no need for unrestricted submarine warfare and no US intervention.

Austria-Hungary would have been spared much of the strain of fighting Russia. Italy might even have joined the Central Powers in order to get a chunk of southern France from the anticipated peace treaty.

Obviously the German mobilisation would be compromised, being integrated with the Schlieffen Plan it assembled the German Armies directly at their jumping-off points for the invasion of Belgium.

Despite this, I think the drawbacks of cancelling the plan are more than compensated for by the benefits of not being at war with Britain and not taking the horrific casualties associated with invading France (for example 300,000 at the Marne and 100,000 at 1st Ypres).

[SorelusImperion]

It could have been done without US intervention

And it could have gone wrong. Russia's collapse significantly improved Germany's strategic position and had the potential to blunt the blockade.

You are completely forgetting the battle against the Ottoman Empire which Britain and France were well on their way to winning.

Just as much as you are forgetting that the very same broken Ottoman Empire or rather "Turkey" still had enough energy to chase out the intervention troops. Without the US intervention Germany still would have to choose a Schwerpunkt but even small German reinforcements could have stopped the Allied forces with ease at the Taurus mountain range. Getting further into Anatolia would have been a logistical nightmare and far more difficult than the previous campaign.

[Sphere]

Central empires didn't win because they couldn't. It's not like they didn't try anything they could think of (chemical warfare being one of them).

The one area where Germany held back was at sea. After the chaotic foray at Jutland, the battle fleet was never sent out again. At the end of the war the crews muitained and the Fleet was confiscated by the allies under the armistice agreement.

In retrospect, the surface fleet should have been used more aggressively, even if it was up agaisnt tough odds.